March 31, 2013

Is “Right To Know” about GMOs the same as “Teach the Controversy”?

I was reading Keith Kloor’s article Teaching the Controversy. He likens the “right to know” campaign (the movement to label genetically modified foods) as a variation of the creationist “teach the controversy” strategy. There is no “controversy” over whether evolution is true or not (spoiler: it's true) and “teach the controversy” is just a bit of misleading framing to try to get their pseudoscience taught in schools. Kloor was saying this is the same as when anti-GMO activists frame the GMO labeling debate by saying that consumers should have the right to know what’s in their food. It’s an interesting point and there’s some truth to it, but I don’t think it’s quite the same. As much as I dislike conceding points to anti-GMO nuts, I have to agree that the right to know what’s in your food isn’t totally bogus. Many people are loath to eat GMO food, and they feel justified in asking for GMOs to be labeled.

My objection to Prop 37 and the labeling proponents is that food labeling should be based on the best available science, and not on a majority vote of a largely scientifically illiterate electorate. And that is especially true when that electorate has been influenced by the many misleading claims and fear mongering from anti-GMO groups. (Although they actually ended up voting against it in California.) There is no valid science that I have seen that provides any reason for blanket labeling of GMOs in food, and so in my view they shouldn’t be compulsorily labeled.

What if you still want to avoid GMOs? Well, there is nothing to stop producers of non-GMO food from labeling their products as such. That would seem to solve the problem without further regulation. There is a precedent for this - the organic industry regulates what can be labeled as “organic” food although there is no good science that shows organic food is any healthier than conventionally grown. (For example, see this systematic review of 240 studies comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods. Steven Novella explained the review here: No Health Benefits from Organic Food.) In fact, the organic standard already excludes GMOs so if you are really concerned to avoid GMOs then just buy organic. In addition, many “no GMO” labels are already appearing on food. So in my view there is no need for an additional regulation to provide what is in reality useless information about GMO content.

While the anti-GMO movement is similar in may ways to intelligent design proponents and global warming deniers (bogus scientific studies, logical fallacies, changing goalposts, repeating claims long after they have been refuted), I don’t think the right to know is quite like teach the controversy. Similar in some ways, but not quite the same.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Note that there might be more reasons beyond health to want to know where your food comes from. For example, most people want to avoid battery eggs because of how they treat chickens, not because free range eggs are healthier. Similarly, many people don't like GMO because of the business practices of the big GMO companies. There is nothing anti-science about these concerns.

When Prop 37 was defeated it wasn't the electorate weighing the scientific arguments. The anti-Prop 37 was funded by the all the large food producers Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsi-Cola,Nestle Foods, Coca-Cola were among those who gave over one million dollars to blanket the airwaves that defeated Prop 37. Monsanto and DuPont together gave 12 million dollars. When Calfornia voters approved the ban of same sex marriage it was the Christian Evengelicals and the Mormons who funded the massive Prop 8 ballot intiative. In both cases, California was blanketed by a media blitz against underfunded opponents who led in the early polls but were overwhelmed by the late media blitz. Money buys everything.

Woo.
Woo is not a blanket to hide under so as to just accept 'assumed information'

Climate Change is an established science, and there are many independent (relatively) organizations to look for information.

GMO's are a relatively new phenomenon.

Dr. Don Huber has pointed out that plants that are modified to be 'glyphosate' tolerant tend to have weaker immune responses.

This has lead to deaths in cattle.. no woo.

bio diversity is a good thing.
Intiution and imagination are tools too.
Einstein was not your average scientist - and in his time was accused of some serious woo. I mean relativity come on, capital F flakey.

then in time it was proven to be substantially correct.

Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data. I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Letter to US Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack from Dr. Don Huber on the deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa
Dr. Don Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University

CONFIDENTIAL and URGENT
The Honorable Thomas Vilsack United States Secretary of Agriculture
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!
This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:
Unique Physical Properties This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
Pathogen Location and Concentration It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.
Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlage experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlage, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
Recommendations In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data. I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.
Sincerely,
COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber Emeritus Professor, Purdue University

"As much as I dislike conceding points to anti-GMO nuts,"
and
"misleading framing to try to get their pseudoscience "

you compare scientists who have valid research and valid concerns over the control Monsanto has over American Agribusiness, to creationists and a 'scientifically illiterate electorate'.

What you mean to say really is that you are so sure that you have figured this out, that there is no room for debate or question.

All you are exposing is your ignorance, and your entrenched preconceptions . You think yourself superior because you are not enchanted by 'woo'. yet you belong to a cult of self imposed exile where all those who have evidence contrary to your beliefs are discarded.

You pretend to be a 'skeptic' but yet your statements show that your bias is beyond what a 'skeptic' should have.

risk to benefit and right to know, best practices these are factors in the GMO debate.

Europe takes a precautionary approach where the risks (uncontrollable genetic contamination with unknown consequences can be huge) to benefit.

they are a for profit company given a blank cheque by and uninformed at best, and deliberately misguided public championed by people like infomercial hawkers 'frankly i am skeptical dave' you mean i can sit on my ass eating bullshit AND be totally a genius athlete tell me more monansto representative, just the facts now.

turns to studio audience.

Don't be fooled by woo, monsanto really fucking cares about you and everyone on this wonderful planet.

Do not copy and paste massive amounts of text. Copy a few paragraphs if you want with a link to the full article.

When you do quote someone else’s text, please make it clear what you are quoting and what is your own. The best method is using blockquote as explained in how to format comments (see how I have quoted your work below).

Now, on to your comments. You originally wrote:

Dr. Don Huber has pointed out that plants that are modified to be 'glyphosate' tolerant tend to have weaker immune responses.

Which is a link, true. But unfortunately for you not a link to support the Roundup Ready crops have “weaker immune responses” claim, so that is your FAIL #1.

The link is to an opinion piece saying GM alfalfa “isn’t necessary” which may or may not be true, but it says nothing about weaker immune responses. It’s also just an opinion piece with no links to any science. This has nothing to do with your original claim, or my post about labeling. In reality, it is just the first of your many Gish Gallops, throwing mud in the hope some of it will stick. And this is, I’m sorry to say, a typical woo tactic. So FAIL #2

Then you just repeat your previous claim:

and the original letter that started it all..

[snip 800+ words]

… with even more screed copied this time. Still without a link. (What is it with people who quote large amounts of someone else’s work but cannot, even after asking, provide a link?) No matter. I found it myself. Unfortunately for you, Huber did not ‘point out’ that Roundup Ready crops have “weaker immune responses” as you claimed; he is just saying he thinks it might, and wants government resources to research it further. And as far I I have been able to ascertain, that’s as far as it went.

You see, this is why I regard anti GMO people like you as kooks and pseudoscientists – someone suggests something that you desperately want to believe is true (in this case GMOs = bad), and then you act as if it is already proven. Search Google for the original paragraph you quoted – you will find hundreds of anti_GMO websites gleefully quoting it verbatim (rarely with the source) and never with the lightest indication that Huber’s claims are just his opinion, not backed by evidence. This is the best you have? Here you are, pompously quoting a two year old letter as though Moses just brought proof that GMOs are bad down from the mountain carved in stone.

And yet you ignore the actual peer reviewed studies – the ones whose conclusions don’t fit your predetermined conclusion that GMOS must be bad. For example, see this list of independent studies (126 studies and counting).

Of the 42 publications, most examined the effects of feeding GM crop products to livestock including cattle, pigs and poultry. A smaller number examined effects on rats and mice with two on fish. As reported in the abstracts of the publications, 36 studies found no significant effect of GM crop products on the parameters measured or concluded GM and non-GM products were equivalent. Four studies reported a positive effect of the GM feed (however, two of these were GM plants engineered for improved food quality) and two reported negative effects. The studies reporting negative effects were published in 1998 and 1999 (references 3 and 4 in the list). Since 2000, 35 publications have reported no important differences or positive effects of feeding GM crops.

The oral absorption of glyphosate and AMPA is low, and both materials are eliminated essentially unmetabolized. Dermal penetration studies with Roundup showed very low absorption. Experimental evidence has shown that neither glyphosate nor AMPA bioaccumulates in any animal tissue. No significant toxicity occurred in acute, subchronic, and chronic studies. Direct ocular exposure to the concentrated Roundup formulation can result in transient irritation, while normal spray dilutions cause, at most, only minimal effects. The genotoxicity data for glyphosate and Roundup were assessed using a weight-of-evidence approach and standard evaluation criteria. There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is noncarcinogenic. Glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA were not teratogenic or developmentally toxic. There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate. Likewise there were no adverse effects in reproductive tissues from animals treated with glyphosate, AMPA, or POEA in chronic and/or subchronic studies.

So I have literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies; you have a two year old letter that you arrogantly copy and paste as though it is the holy grail. You lose, and that is your FAIL #3.

In Europe Monsanto does a fine business selling hybrid seed, and in tests, the traditional seed outperforms GMO.

Again citation missing. FAIL #4.

Regardless, there must be an advantage to using GMOs or farmers wouldn’t use them now would they? Despite what you may have read in the anti-GMOosphere, farmers do have a choice. FAIL #5.

If you use good practices, selecting for application of powerful herbicides is unnecessary and counter productive.

Farmers using non GMO crops (including organic crops) also use herbicides, often more powerful and less benign that Roundup. FAIL #6.

Unlicensed GMO wheat has apparently been found. Nothing about any dangers. Except the danger of not being able to export it to countries that have GMO bans due to the sort of pseudoscientific scaremongering that you are promoting.

An article about how Monsanto will not pursue more GMO sales in Europe because of the opposition by the public. Opposition stirred up by the sort of pseudoscience and scaremongering that you are promoting here. So what? What does that show except that people have been fooled by the scaremongering? Your link does not show any science to support your GMOs = bad claims. FAIL again.

now about that woo shit.

Charming.

"As much as I dislike conceding points to anti-GMO nuts,"
and

"misleading framing to try to get their pseudoscience "

you compare scientists who have valid research and valid concerns over the control Monsanto has over American Agribusiness, to creationists and a 'scientifically illiterate electorate'.

Not “scientists” in the main, mostly people like you who just repeat what you’ve read on anti-GMO websites. See your own comments for examples of how you have used misleading framing, unsupported claims, straw man arguments etc.

What you mean to say really is that you are so sure that you have figured this out, that there is no room for debate or question.

Here’s a standard woo technique. You take what someone writes, you distort in into an exaggerated, absurd and easily ridiculed version of their argument, and then you ridicule that exaggerated, absurd and easily ridiculed version that you just created. Of course, you have only refuted the made-up version of your opponent’s arguments, not their real one. Also, you have demonstrated that you are unable to refute their real argument, because you ignore the real argument and instead refute your own made up version of the argument. That’s a standard woo technique and it’s what you just did. I have never said I have figured this all out, and I’m clearly not saying that there is no room for debate – you’re debating it here on my website you twit.

This form of argument is a Straw Man Fallacy – another FAIL (I’m losing count now).

All you are exposing is your ignorance, and your entrenched preconceptions . You think yourself superior because you are not enchanted by 'woo'. yet you belong to a cult of self imposed exile where all those who have evidence contrary to your beliefs are discarded.

You pretend to be a 'skeptic' but yet your statements show that your bias is beyond what a 'skeptic' should have.

Daeran, all you are exposing is your ignorance, and your entrenched preconceptions . You think yourself superior because you are not enchanted by GMOs. Yet you belong to a cult of self imposed exile where all those who have evidence contrary to your beliefs are discarded.

You pretend to be a 'skeptic' but yet your statements show that your bias is beyond what a 'skeptic' should have.

..see how easy it is when you don’t have to back your statements up with evidence? It’s just vacuous drivel. Although true when applied to you.

risk to benefit and right to know, best practices these are factors in the GMO debate.

Yes, I know they are factors. You haven’t demonstrated that the risk to benefit ratio is unfavorable to GMOs. I have also explained why “right to know” is largely bogus. FAIL again.

Europe takes a precautionary approach

Yes, I know they have. Mainly because of the sort of misinformation about GMOs that I am exposing but you are trying to perpetrate. FAIL.

where the risks (uncontrollable genetic contamination with unknown consequences can be huge) to benefit.

Many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops, says a new report from the National Research Council.

Benefits are very much in existence, despite your denials. Why, it’s almost as if you belong to a cult of self imposed exile where all those who have evidence contrary to your beliefs are discarded.

Can you even fathom to guess why?

You first have to establish it is true before I need to guess “why.”

BECAUSE herbicide resistance is generally a negative.

Herbicide resistance is not confined to GMOs.

What we want is HIGHER YEILDS, and HEALTHIER CROPS.

neither of which is truly MONSANTO"S mandate.

Who said it was? So what?

they are a for profit company given a blank cheque by and uninformed at best, and deliberately misguided public championed by people like infomercial hawkers 'frankly i am skeptical dave' you mean i can sit on my ass eating bullshit AND be totally a genius athlete tell me more monansto representative, just the facts now.

turns to studio audience.

Don't be fooled by woo, monsanto really fucking cares about you and everyone on this wonderful planet.

FRankly Dave, I am still skeptical.

And here we have the real reason you are opposed to GMOs – behold the cartoonish Argumentum ad Monsantium. Delivered by a host of Straw Men.

Your arguments contain so many FAILS I have actually lost count. You need to expand your reading to include some real science sources. Try starting with nature.com’s GM crop special.

Body weight is centrally regulated, with peripheral hormonal signals released from the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and adipose tissue integrated, primarily in the hypothalamus, to regulate food intake and energy expenditure.3 The number of identified peripheral modulators of appetite is expanding rapidly and includes leptin, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, peptide YY, insulin, pancreatic polypeptide, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1).4-10

In 1998 and 1999, Chopra, along with two co-workers: Drs. Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, testified to the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that they were pressured by senior supervisors to approve multiple drugs of questionable safety, including Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST) and Baytril, which in the words of Chopra, "is even more controversial. It's a critical antibiotic, one that produces cross-resistance against a critical antibiotic necessary for human use called ciprofloxacin. It's from the same class of drugs. When it is used in poultry, beef, turkeys, pigs, or whatever, then it causes cross-resistance in the intestines of those animals. Then those bacteria, like salmonella, campylobacter, or E. coli, get transferred to people and cause disease and death of immense order."[9][10][11] Prior to the mad cow disease crisis in Canada, Chopra warned the government that the current handling of feed to cows was inadequate.[12] Following this, Chopra, Haydon, Lambert and colleague Chris Bassude complained to the Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO) office, a federal investigative body under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board of Canada, indicating again that they were pressured by their seniors to pass a number of veterinary drugs, including Tylosin, Revalor H, Synergistin Injectable Suspension, Baytril, rBST, Carbodex and Eugenol, without proof of human safety.[13][14] The PSIO case was initially dismissed in 2003, but the ruling was appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.

The new maize crop resistant to Round-Up only performed 97 pct. compared to traditional maize for the two test years in total, the authority (Plantedirektoratet, Afdeling for Sortsafprøvning, Fagudvalget) writes. It also warns for the harmful effect of the herbicide Round-Up and concludes that the most realistic outcome is that the crop will not be allowed for growing in Denmark.

Monsanto cancelled the different crops from growing trials on different times. The last was cancelled on the 1st of February 2012. By doing that Monsanto could keep the failure out of the public domain.

As a side note Monasanto sells most of the Hybrid Corn in Europe they pretty much own everything when it comes to corn seed lines.. very profitable. However they cannot control the hybrid seed with the same patentable enforcements as they can their own GMO. So they encourage their own GMO seed sales.. totally rational in a for profit oriented entity.

Thats why Monsanto Corn is not encouraged in Europe, farmers simply do not see the need..and agencies do not see a favourable risk to benefit.

The US Ag system i contend is influenced by to many large corporate entities that discourage non profitable lines of research.

"... some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming -- such as labor dynamics, farm structure, or community viability -- have largely been overlooked, the report says. More research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those who don't grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.

Research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. Examples include plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions. Intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes whenever possible.

GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices."

Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable).

There are some pretty big differences to explain there. I will say that the Rodale Institute’s claims are interesting but so far unproven.

Third, your Danish test results are really just a link to a series of letters, but no matter, the point of Roundup Ready is that it makes it easier for the farmer to apply pesticide, not that yields are higher, so the 97% thing is really moot.

Lastly, risks of monocultures are not limited to GM crops.

I’m glad you are not opposed to GMOs, although that isn’t how your writing comes across.

Abstract
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

59 Million in U.S. Have Fatty Liver Disease, a Serious Condition: Am I at Risk?
26,000 Americans Die Each Year from Complications Stemming from Fatty Liver Disease

Investigators reviewed nationally representative data of more than 10,000 12- to 18-year-olds from the National Health and Examination Survey datasets, spanning 1988 to 2008. Suspected NAFLD was defined as overweight/obese (those with a body mass index greater than the 85th percentile) with elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), a blood test that is typically used to detect liver injury.

According to the study, the prevalence of NAFLD among U.S. teens grew from 3.6 percent to 9.9 percent, increasing at a rate faster than teen obesity during the same time. In looking at cross-sectional data to explain the increase in prevalence of NAFLD, researchers found a link to increased NAFLD and waist circumference -- the measure of the distance around the abdomen half way between the inferior margin in the last rib and the crest of the hip bone.

"We know that if a child is overweight, they are more likely to be overweight as an adult," says Vos. "We know from national data that teens with fatty liver disease become adults with fatty liver disease, unless they improve their diet and lose a significant amount of weight."

So as a precaution you may wish to limit your intake of GMO corn derived products.

In other words I am still skeptical.

When applying a food or additive to an entire nation, I think a degree of skepticism is required.
It is not just the humber studies it is quality and bias that need to be considered as well.

If you are a scientist working for health canada the shiv chopra scandal on Rgbh, showed scientists what happens when their 'results' are not pliable, or presented in the right light.

I see you still can’t provide links, separate your own writing from quotes from other people, or write concisely in one post. All the above is getting tiresome. Also, for someone who claims to be non anti-GMO you like to repeat already debunked anti-GMO nonsense, and form anti-GMO conclusions for no rational reason.

"Research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop."

Labeling would simply end the monopoly that GMO seeds currently enjoy.

GMO seeds do not enjoy a monopoly. Perhaps you meant to say Monsanto’s monopoly? If so, labeling would do nothing to end Monsanto’s monopoly. Labeling is a ploy to try to end GMOs – you’ve been played.

Frankly when it comes to GMO food.

I am sure you have heard of this..

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

OMG you’re quoting the Seralini study? How clueless do you have to be to proudly quote that piece of debunked pseudoscience? Here are just a few of the reports from independent scientists who savaged that study within a few days of its publication:

Cherry picking of data, ignoring Séralini’s own results which contradict their conclusion

Poor choice in animal model, because the rat type is prone to cancers

No dose-response study, necessary for toxicology studies

Compare that with more than 100 peer-reviewed studies - many by independent scientists - that have demonstrated the safety of GM crops.

Clueless and unskeptical reporting of an anti-GMO study because it supports your anti-GMO conclusion? No, you’re not anti-GMO. Sure.

59 Million in U.S. Have Fatty Liver Disease, a Serious Condition: Am I at Risk?
26,000 Americans Die Each Year from Complications Stemming from Fatty Liver Disease

[Snipped pasted text about obesity etc.]

So as a precaution you may wish to limit your intake of GMO corn derived products.

Why? Nothing in the piece you quoted said anything about these problems being caused by GMOs.

In other words I am still skeptical.

No, you’re anything but. You are completely unskeptical of any anti-GMO propaganda that you read. You’ve have had, what, 15-20 posts now on this website? I’ve lost count. And yet nothing of substance. You’ve just been throwing mud, a veritable Gish Gallop of anti-GMO pseudoscience and talking points, but nothing has stuck. You’ve had your chance, now you’re done. I don’t have the time for any more of this nonsense - go away.